|
Effectronica posted:This is an extremely stupid post. Not as stupid as a guy who thinks plugging in his eSATA hard disk overheated his laptop. Because it demonstrates that you don't know how a basic computer functions, or how the individual systems function. Much like your thread discussing how evolution implies the supernatural. Effectronica posted:Because we have no naturalistic mechanism to explain this prevalence, as of yet. I suspect that one will be discovered, as opposed to anything conventionally supernatural, but until then, like plate tectonics stood for 50 years, it lies outside the boundaries of naturalism. No, Supernatural ideals are not like tectonic plates. Tectonic plates still have some evidence supporting their existence prior to their discovery, supernatural phenomenon mostly depends upon coincidences and pseudoscience. I sincerely doubt that in 50 years, we'll be praising someone for the discovery of the supernatural world that was hidden all this time. Plate tectonics had evidence even before their discovery, as of right now, the supernatural has even less evidence than the evidence of the idea of the atom during the classical Greek era.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Point to where I said/implied this or apologize for lying. haha lol So anyway, your whole idea is based on the idea that beliefs are more likely to be true than expected by random chance. I will give you that intuitively this seems true at least for beliefs that can potentially matter in everyday life. You then go on to produce terrible awkward guesstimates involving abuses of probability a first year undergrad should be ashamed of (I would even say you are intentionally misleading if I didn't think you are not competent enough for that): Effectronica posted:never mind that you still only have a 0.5% chance of forming 50 correct independent beliefs with a 90% chance of forming truthful ones bullshit detector posted:never mind that you still only have a 0.5% chance of forming 50 correct independent beliefs in a row with a 90% chance of forming truthful ones. Given a random selection of 50 beliefs, we would however expect 45 of those to be true given a 90% chance of forming truthful ones. Effectronica posted:But I am saying "low probability" without really doing any math. So let's make up a simple model, where we have a model human who has 100 beliefs, any of which may be true or false, and which are randomly formed as true or false, independently of one another. What is the probability that she forms her first 50 beliefs as true ones? Remember, these are independent events! So the formula for the probability is (0.5)^50, which amounts to 8.88e-16, or 8.88e-14% chance. Remember, this is for half the beliefs, not all of them. Even forming 10 true beliefs in a row has a 0.098% chance of occurring for her. While on average half of her beliefs will be true, they will be randomly scattered throughout this set of beliefs, generally in small groups. bullshit detector posted:But I am saying "low probability" without really doing any math. So let's make up a simple model, where we have a model human who has 100 beliefs, any of which may be true or false, and which are randomly formed as true or false, independently of one another. What is the probability that she forms her first 50 beliefs in a row, which we have no reason to care about if they form independently; with a chance of 50%, which we assume for no good reason as true ones? Remember, these are independent events! So the formula for the probability is (0.5)^50, which amounts to 8.88e-16, or 8.88e-14% chance. Remember, this is for half the beliefs, not all of them. Even forming 10 true beliefs in a row has a 0.098% chance of occurring for her. While on average half of her beliefs will be true, they will be randomly scattered throughout this set of beliefs, generally in small groups, and I have failed to explain why the order of the true beliefs in this set is in anyway relevant to my argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:47
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
CommieGIR posted:Not as stupid as a guy who thinks plugging in his eSATA hard disk overheated his laptop. Because it demonstrates that you don't know how a basic computer functions, or how the individual systems function. Much like your thread discussing how evolution implies the supernatural. This is another stupid post, which binds together ignorance, willful ignorance, and an inability to understand basic sarcasm. Or is it an unwillingness? blowfish posted:haha lol Well, blowfish, given the many terrible posts that you have made, inductive reasoning would force me to conclude that this is likely to be terrible as well, and I would only respond to it with a jibe at you. Instead, I am going to point out that your vast argumentation has been, basically, "I loving hate you, you stupid rear end, but I agree with what you say and my only problem is that you are not rigorous enough in using probability."
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is another stupid post, which binds together ignorance, willful ignorance, and an inability to understand basic sarcasm. If your inability to make valid comparisons is sarcasm, you need a lot of help.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Because we have no naturalistic mechanism to explain this prevalence, as of yet. I suspect that one will be discovered, as opposed to anything conventionally supernatural, but until then, like plate tectonics stood for 50 years, it lies outside the boundaries of naturalism. I absolutely do not get this. The mechanism is learning, both through trial and error as well as through information taught by others. All of that is perfectly obvious and acceptable to a naturalist thinker. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:54
|
|
botany posted:I absolutely do not get this. The mechanism is learning, both through trial and error as well as through information taught by others. All of that is perfectly obvious and acceptable to a naturalist thinker. What am I missing? Consider the subset of beliefs where learning is rare because the events about the beliefs are rare, so direct testing and transmitted knowledge of testing is, in turn, rare. These are still very likely to be truthful, much more likely than by chance.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so that's nonsense, irrelevancy, gratuitous hatred of autistic people, a possibly interesting aside that, on the basis of inductive reasoning, (which brings truth inerrantly) I must reject, and a misunderstanding of what you wrote, that resolves in "beliefs are primarily transmitted socially". There are some major problems with this given that there's still nowhere near any consensus on the origin of language, but whatever, our instinctual beliefs all formed within the last 20,000 years or so, right? quote:Because we have no naturalistic mechanism to explain this prevalence, as of yet. I suspect that one will be discovered, as opposed to anything conventionally supernatural, but until then, like plate tectonics stood for 50 years, it lies outside the boundaries of naturalism. You operate under the incorrect belief (heh) that natural selection in species with flexible behaviour operates on the level of individual behaviours. There is no gene or base sequence that specifically codes for "be a moron that tries to hug tigers" or "think that fire is wet". At the very most, there are genes that increase things along the lines of a propensity to investigate phenomena further (increasing the likely hood of reaching less incorrect conclusions), curiosity, fear, and possibly the capacity for abstract thinking and believing information from others etc. A person that is very curious, not fearful, and thinks everyone else is full of poo poo may try to hug a tiger and die. In an environment where tigers are common, these traits (and not the belief that tigers are friendly and cuddly) would be selected against. In an environment where tigers are rare, but which is otherwise complex and variable, curiosity, a lack of fear, and independent thinking would be more advantageous. Effectronica posted:Well, blowfish, given the many terrible posts that you have made, inductive reasoning would force me to conclude that this is likely to be terrible as well, and I would only respond to it with a jibe at you. Instead, I am going to point out that your vast argumentation has been, basically, "I loving hate you, you stupid rear end, but I agree with what you say and my only problem is that you are not rigorous enough in using probability." I would say that quote:This is an extremely stupid post. In addition, I would like you to point out where I agree with you. Furthermore, provide evidence for your assertion that beliefs are so likely to be true as to suggest supernatural influence rather than explainable as direct or indirect consequences of evolved characteristics, and that beliefs are seperate from behaviour (which is required for the previous assertion) Indeed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Consider the subset of beliefs where learning is rare because the events about the beliefs are rare, so direct testing and transmitted knowledge of testing is, in turn, rare. These are still very likely to be truthful, much more likely than by chance. I really don't see how that implies supernatural agency, though. Going back to the tiger example, one could apply the pattern of "large animals with sharp pointy teeth are dangerous" to tigers and still get a true belief despite no experience with tigers specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Consider the subset of beliefs where learning is rare because the events about the beliefs are rare, so direct testing and transmitted knowledge of testing is, in turn, rare. These are still very likely to be truthful, much more likely than by chance. Provide any evidence for this. Provide a single loving example of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It is possible to construct more complex methods of evaluating truthfulness of beliefs and so on, but the basic problem right here is that most of our beliefs seem to be true ones. Snakes can be poisonous or otherwise dangerous, we generally are pretty good about determining whether there's a beer in our fridge or not, and so on. Our senses tell us that our beliefs are truer than they must be by probability. So: "biology is true, and that our general theory of scientific knowledge is true, and that only things that can be scientifically analyzed are real". Pick two. Either our senses can't be trusted, or creationism is true but there is no god directing it, or, and this is frankly the most reasonable- the supernatural exists. Something, which is beyond our perceptions and knowledge, is a phenomenon which ensures that our beliefs are more likely to be true than they should be given natural selection. Effectronica posted:Consider the subset of beliefs where learning is rare because the events about the beliefs are rare, so direct testing and transmitted knowledge of testing is, in turn, rare. These are still very likely to be truthful, much more likely than by chance. You are ignoring instinctual knowledge, things that are carried by genetics and implanted in your mind due to thousands of generations of implied knowledge from actual experience, like: to avoid predators (which is still largely a taught knowledge, but you have an instinctual push to avoid things that present in certain ways, its why children even today fear monsters in the dark.) or to avoid poisonous things (taught) or personal faith (overwhelmingly taught and varied by culture). Someone learned this long ago, and passed it on because they survived. There was no supernatural element. Regardless, there is no reason to believe, say, an undiscovered or uncontacted tribes beliefs are true. Its an incredible stretch to try to imply that beliefs are supernaturally inspired instead of taught, especially when evidence is strictly against your claims. Most of our beliefs are taught. Isolate a subject in an environment where he cannot generate those beliefs, and he will not have them. Technogeek posted:I really don't see how that implies supernatural agency, though. Going back to the tiger example, one could apply the pattern of "large animals with sharp pointy teeth are dangerous" to tigers and still get a true belief despite no experience with tigers specifically. He's assuming that our ancestors had no instinctual fear of predators. Which is pretty stupid, because even the most basic of animals has an instinctual fear of things which might hunt/eat it. Survival is a natural instinct, but what specifically is dangerous is a taught ideal. Infants were taught by their parents to fear predators but still has a basic self-preservation instinct to fear the unknown, and then as small children LEARNED what those predators were, and then if they survived they taught their offspring the same thing, as well as any new predators they run into. I cannot grasp where he's getting the idea that we'd be unable to survive without some sort of supernatural inspiration for survival. Its disingenuous, and presents animals as incapable of learning by experience and holds humans as stupid without divine guidance. At the same time, we've directly observed what happens to animals that have not had an instinctual AND taught fear of predators, we find it in places like New Guinea and the Galapagos, where animals tend not to have natural predators. They show no fear of those who WOULD harm them, and led to the extinction and near extinction of multiple species. But some of them learned and survived. quote:Even the most simple of living organisms (for example, the single-celled bacteria) are typically under intense selective pressure to evolve a response to avoid a damaging environment, if such an environment exists. Organisms also evolve while adapting - even thriving - in a benign environment (for example, a marine sponge modifies its structure in response to current changes, in order to better absorb and process nutrients). Self-preservation is therefore an almost universal hallmark of life. However, when introduced to a novel threat, many species will have a self-preservation response either too specialised, or not specialised enough, to cope with that particular threat.[citation needed] An example is the dodo, which evolved in the absence of natural predators and hence lacked an appropriate, general self-preservation response to heavy predation by humans and rats, showing no fear of them His argument would make more sense and have more validity of multiple associated and never contacted tribes had the same beliefs and the same learned/taught survival knowledge. But that isn't so. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:At the same time, we've directly observed what happens to animals that have not had an instinctual AND taught fear of predators, we find it in places like New Guinea and the Galapagos, where animals tend not to have natural predators. They show no fear of those who WOULD harm them, and led to the extinction and near extinction of multiple species. But some of them learned and survived. New Zealand is even better: Moas were only used to eagles as predators, so Maori could pretty much walk up to them and take a bite. An estimated population of a few hundred people ate all the Moas on NZ in a few centuries. While we have knocked out the larger examples of such animals, we still have smaller case going on with invasive species on islands, e.g. invasive snakes on Guam or Partula snails which are literally too dumb to crawl away when imported predatory snails start nibbling. CommieGIR posted:His argument would make more sense and have more validity of multiple associated and never contacted tribes had the same beliefs and the same learned/taught survival knowledge. But that isn't so. I am not surprised by the fact that Effectronica fails to consider the one obvious piece of support for his crackpot idea. A great thinker or observer, he is not. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:New Zealand is even better: Moas were only used to eagles as predators, so Maori could pretty much walk up to them and take a bite. An estimated population of a few hundred people ate all the Moas on NZ in a few centuries. While we have knocked out the larger examples of such animals, we still have smaller case going on with invasive species on islands, e.g. invasive snakes on Guam or Partula snails which are literally too dumb to crawl away when imported predatory snails start nibbling. Either way, Effectronica's argument assumes that all humans have the same beliefs regardless of culture, which is not so. Even instincts are very basic, and require further expansion through teaching, in which the teacher has been taught the knowledge that would be passed, and somewhere along those lines someone LEARNED what is to be taught through first hand experience or observation. Things that survive the longest are the ones that have learned the most what to avoid/what to exploit. Its a basic keystone of evolution: It was never survival of the STRONGEST but the survival of those who can better adapt to their environment through exploitation or inherent knowledge that they've built up. I mean, unless its religious beliefs. Where its usually just a cultural stigma and/or tradition. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:29
|
|
Technogeek posted:I really don't see how that implies supernatural agency, though. Going back to the tiger example, one could apply the pattern of "large animals with sharp pointy teeth are dangerous" to tigers and still get a true belief despite no experience with tigers specifically. But, large predators rarely attack humans, so the basic problem remains. Not only do we have the adaptive behavior, but we have a true belief about why this is a wise behavior, and it relies either on a constant string of attacks by predators or a continuous chain of knowledge from one of the few people who witness such attacks, both of which are not especially plausible.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:But, large predators rarely attack humans, so the basic problem remains. Not only do we have the adaptive behavior, but we have a true belief about why this is a wise behavior, and it relies either on a constant string of attacks by predators or a continuous chain of knowledge from one of the few people who witness such attacks, both of which are not especially plausible. Ironically, this is only true in the past thousand years. There is good reason to believe large predators attacked our ancestors, but after we began to become more social and travel in larger groups and learned to hunt as a group, we became less of a target of opportunity. Large predators tend to recognize themselves that humans are dangerous and not easy prey, yet our offspring IS easy prey and in more wild places, large predators will still kill/eat small children and infants if they think they can get the upper hand. They learned. They learned that humans in large groups are dangerous, that an adult human is still a challenging meal and unlikely to be worth the expended energy. Large predators want to survive overwhelmed their want to eat humans. Its basic risk/benefit knowledge that even the most basic animal has. Effectronica posted:Not only do we have the adaptive behavior, but we have a true belief about why this is a wise behavior, and it relies either on a constant string of attacks by predators or a continuous chain of knowledge from one of the few people who witness such attacks, both of which are not especially plausible. Do you know WHY first hand knowledge is considered so valuable? The knowledge that a predator is dangerous does not have to fade in humans regardless of the current existence of the predator due to our longer memory and tendency to pass knowledge down by tradition. I can teach my son that a tiger is dangerous, despite never meeting one, because someone else gained that knowledge first hand and wrote it down to pass it on to others. In more basic animals, if you remove a predator from the cycle for several generations, they may no longer show fear of that specific predator. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
"I'm effectronica durr durr durr"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
And even then, one attack in decades would be enough. You only need to know that you kill stuff for a living, tigers kill stuff, and a tiger killed your buddy's uncle's grandpa.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
blowfish posted:And even then, one attack in decades would be enough. You only need to know that you kill stuff for a living, tigers kill stuff, and a tiger killed your buddy's uncle's grandpa. We remember. Someone survived an experience, and passed on that fear through teaching. No supernatural involvement needed. Tigers, at the same time, learned WE are dangerous. We are to be avoided. They learned that the animals that walk on two legs can kill them or harm them. They didn't know this before, and many paid the price for it. But that is beside the point: predators tend to be wary of things to begin with, usually due to the first hand knowledge of basics of how hunting works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Let us begin by setting out the basic situation. Let us assume that evolution by means of natural selection happens and is predominant. Let us assume that our minds are created by the operations of our brain. Let us also assume, for the time being, that what we can perceive through verifiable, repeatable empiricism is all that is real. So in other words, let's assume that biology is true, and that our general theory of scientific knowledge is true, and that only things that can be scientifically analyzed are real. it wouldn't be d and d if someone wasn't butchering probability/statistics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
The fun thing is that social learning is present even in social animals. For example, hand raised crows will suddenly become wary of humans after being around wild crows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The fun thing is that social learning is present even in social animals. For example, hand raised crows will suddenly become wary of humans after being around wild crows. Not to mention how many socially learned beliefs are wrong, like the guy who thinks certain colored berries are safe to eat even though they are not because someone passed on the wrong info. If the guy who eats the very poisonous berry that he thought was safe survives, he will (hopefully) pass on the NEWLY corrected knowledge versus the flawed previous knowledge. You figure that supernaturally inspired belief would have corrected that in the first place... CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
This thread is its own conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not to mention how many socially learned beliefs are wrong, like the guy who things certain colored berries are safe to eat even though they are not because someone passed on the wrong info. In Germany we still have this happen with immigrants from Eastern Europe/Russia who go pick familiar-looking mushrooms and then die from kidney failure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This thread is its own conclusion. Exactly. Effectronica made it pretty clear in his OP that he had already drawn his exact conclusions about his chosen belief by calling his conclusions 'the most reasonable' which implies nothing more than a foregone discussion about why he is right and everyone else is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Exactly. Effectronica made it pretty clear in his OP that he had already drawn his exact conclusions about his chosen belief by calling his conclusions 'the most reasonable' which implies nothing more than a foregone discussion about why he is right and everyone else is wrong. I like Effectronica threads because they provide an opportunity to laugh at idiocy with no feeling of remorse. In fact, I propose we now discuss the hypothesis that Effectronica threads provide adequate baseline data for the proportion of human beliefs that are correct by random chance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is an extremely stupid post. Effectronica posted:This is an extremely stupid post. That's as close to an apology as I've ever seen in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I like Effectronica threads because they provide an opportunity to laugh at idiocy with no feeling of remorse. In fact, I propose we now discuss the hypothesis that Effectronica threads provide adequate baseline data for the proportion of human beliefs that are correct by random chance. I think Effectronica's OP is good evidence as to why its neccessary to keep empiricism as a cornerstone of the scientific method. Because otherwise we get metaphysics-like claims like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think Effectronica's OP is good evidence as to why its neccessary to keep empiricism as a cornerstone of the scientific method. Because otherwise we get metaphysics-like claims like this. Yeah. But it's not like there aren't scientists who are just as bad at reasoning and providing evidence. See for example the current debate in sustainability circles on solutions to climate change & land use where grown professors are seriously throwing around bullshit about how it's concerning that more and more scientists are looking at climate change as a problem to be solved rather than a case for questioning the human condition (the questioning is supposed to lead to a more interconnected, less divorced-from-nature society, of course) and intentionally fail to distinguish their vision of an ideal society from the science of ecology and conservation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Yeah. But it's not like there aren't scientists who are just as bad at reasoning and providing evidence. See for example the current debate in sustainability circles on solutions to climate change & land use where grown professors are seriously throwing around bullshit about how it's concerning that more and more scientists are looking at climate change as a problem to be solved rather than a case for questioning the human condition (the questioning is supposed to lead to a more interconnected, less divorced-from-nature society, of course) and intentionally fail to distinguish their vision of an ideal society from the science of ecology and conservation. Plenty of very intelligent and well read scientists say incredibly stupid and moronic things. They just tend to be on things not related to their immediate field of study. One of my physics professors believes vaccines cause autism. He knows nothing about biology and his specialty is isotope separation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
You have your chicken and your egg mixed up in my opinion, OP. Evolution starts forward blindly - organic chemical reactions forming competitive units, becoming more sophisticated as duplication errors create advantages. Actual brains, cognition, instinct, and belief come much later. Once brains exist they start developing through natural selection, but life precludes 'thought'. Maybe you can argue that organic compounds have a thermodynamic 'drive' to become life given the right conditions (lots of solvency and energy). But a supernatural engineer completely outside our universe is much harder to grasp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
McDowell posted:You have your chicken and your egg mixed up in my opinion, OP. Not to mention, we've got studies showing 'learning' among even the most basic of living things: Bacteria and Protozoans, Who have the most basic of nervous systems, which means learning is not tied only to a large brain but even the most simple of nervous networks can exhibit the specific ability to learn about their environment. Of course, at that level the information is passed genetically versus taught. They can learn to anticipate future events based on recurrence. Based on that and the path evolution has taken, learning and knowledge is easily explained by simple trial-error rather than supernatural involvement. EDIT: Yeah, cells don't have nervous systems. I miss-spoke, my mistake. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
McDowell posted:You have your chicken and your egg mixed up in my opinion, OP. drat I think I might make oyakodon for dinner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Bacteria and Protozoans Who have the most basic of nervous systems. They don't have nervous systems, they don't have tissue. Bacteria are more like single cell nanorobots than tiny people. The individual units die to warn the hive mind. When you look at sponges, coral and portuguese mano'wars, then you see the beginnings of tissue and organs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not to mention, we've got studies showing 'learning' among even the most basic of living things: Bacteria and Protozoans, Who have the most basic of nervous systems, which means learning is not tied only to a large brain but even the most simple of nervous networks can exhibit the specific ability to learn about their environment. Of course, at that level the information is passed genetically versus taught. They can learn to anticipate future events based on recurrence. You do realise neither bacteria nor protozoans have nerve tissue, what with them being bacteria and protozoans? e: beaten but they could "learn" via epigenetics
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
McDowell posted:They don't have nervous systems, they don't have tissue. Bacteria are more like single cell nanorobots than tiny people. The individual units die to warn the hive mind. I meant the nucleus, but you are right, its not a 'nervous system' per se, more similar to a computers BIOS: Pre-written genetic instructions that the cell must follow. blowfish posted:You do realise neither bacteria nor protozoans have nerve tissue, what with them being bacteria and protozoans? Yeah, I misspoke. You are both right. I'm a physicist, not a biologist 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think Effectronica's OP is good evidence as to why its neccessary to keep empiricism as a cornerstone of the scientific method. Because otherwise we get metaphysics-like claims like this. Its really no different than DeepakChopra.txt. I don't think its moral to use $10 scientific terms to convince the illiterate that science implies the supernatural is real but what do I know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Assume that the standard empirical scientific is true. Reach a conclusion inconsistent with the assumption, i.e., "there exist supernatural phenomena." Why stop there, OP? From inconsistency you can prove anything. I have just devised a marvelous proof that the real numbers are countable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Immortan posted:Its really no different than DeepakChopra.txt. I don't think its moral to use $10 scientific terms to convince the illiterate that science implies the supernatural is real but what do I know. An argument could be made that people who have at some point heard Words on the internet and are insecure about their existence are not able to see the morality of the situation  Jack of Hearts posted:Assume that the standard empirical scientific is true. Reach a conclusion inconsistent with the assumption, i.e., "there exist supernatural phenomena." Why stop there, OP? From inconsistency you can prove anything. I have just devised a marvelous proof that the real numbers* are countable. *defined as a set N [0,my current age in seconds]
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I sincerely doubt that in 50 years, we'll be praising someone for the discovery of the supernatural world that was hidden all this time. Plate tectonics had evidence even before their discovery, as of right now, the supernatural has even less evidence than the evidence of the idea of the atom during the classical Greek era. I would like to come back to this point, as Effectroonica's insistence upon defining the supernatural as "anything we don't currently know" is astonishingly terrible. In practical terms, this means that if a bunch of stupid rednecks were the only people to survive WW3, the supernatural would suddenly encompass anything from evolutionary biology to making digital watches (quantum physics ho). It really only makes sense to use consistent definitions independent of the changing state of knowledge, e.g. the natural world is everything that is in principle empirically observable, or basing the definition on falsifiability of potential understanding. e: CommieGIR posted:Plenty of very intelligent and well read scientists say incredibly stupid and moronic things. They just tend to be on things not related to their immediate field of study. But in this case it's sustainability scientists being unscientific about sustainability things, so they should be doubly ashamed. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I would like to come back to this point, as Effectroonica's insistence upon defining the supernatural as "anything we don't currently know" is astonishingly terrible. In practical terms, this means that if a bunch of stupid rednecks were the only people to survive WW3, the supernatural would suddenly encompass anything from evolutionary biology to making digital watches (quantum physics ho). It really only makes sense to use consistent definitions independent of the changing state of knowledge, e.g. the natural world is everything that is in principle empirically observable, or basing the definition on falsifiability of potential understanding. Its a 'God of the Gaps' argument. He's trying to fill in blanks with assumptions, but in this case especially he is making assumptions about things that are already basically known and confirmed. But that is beside the point, even IF his definition of 'Supernatural' was assumed to be 'Simply the Unknowns', he then appeals to Creationism as a rational possibility, which ignores all the KNOWNS in favor of his unknowns. In the end, why the need to fill in the blanks at all? Its far better to simply say "There are some things that are still unknown and until we find evidence for the unknowns, they shall remain as unknowns instead of filling in the blank with comfy pseudoscientific reasoning." Even the things we didn't really known about like Plate Tectonics, Evolution, or Atomic theory, we had basic evidence that supported such ideas even before they were firmly discovered. blowfish posted:But in this case it's sustainability scientists being unscientific about sustainability things, so they should be doubly ashamed. Even the most intelligent people are willing to fool themselves in order to give them some semblance of mental comfort, and I think a lot of those scientists are making one of the biggest mistakes in allowing their political viewpoint to influence their scientific, which is dangerous thinking. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Consider the subset of beliefs where learning is rare because the events about the beliefs are rare, so direct testing and transmitted knowledge of testing is, in turn, rare. These are still very likely to be truthful, much more likely than by chance. Effectronica posted:But, large predators rarely attack humans, so the basic problem remains. Not only do we have the adaptive behavior, but we have a true belief about why this is a wise behavior, and it relies either on a constant string of attacks by predators or a continuous chain of knowledge from one of the few people who witness such attacks, both of which are not especially plausible. None of this is true. If you're a child in a western country without access to zoos you might well learn that tigers are dangerous by watching Disney's adaptation of the Jungle Book. There is no continuous chain to a tiger attack survivor that I'm aware of, but watching the movie instill the idea that tigers are dangerous nonetheless. Presumably a high percentage of our beliefs are acquired that way. There is no mystery in this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 19:26
|
|